The whole point of this news thread is that a judge has decided that, from the viewpoint of a consumer, Apple itself was selling the apps, and therefore can be sued.
Netflix has no choice but to use Apple's store if they want to reach stock users.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Court Rules Apple Can Be Sued for Monopolizing iPhone App Market
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The whole point of this news thread is that a judge has decided that, from the viewpoint of a consumer, Apple itself was selling the apps, and therefore can be sued.
Netflix has no choice but to use Apple's store if they want to reach stock users.
This is nonsense, why is nobody considering security? We have trojans regularly found in Google App Stores. If people start installing Apps from anywhere there is a potential they will be spreading it to others phones. This is pure nonsense. The old world rules dont apply in the new digital world. Why dont these people just come to reality and understand that digital terrorism and security breach is a serious thing. Who wants there Card data to be stolen by some guy who made a sh*t app with a hidden trojan, or even worse someone made a commercial app with a tracker? Digital privacy is a real concern. and Digital Security is a real threat. These plaintiffs are eating a lot of mushrooms of the wrong kind.
And this might turn out to a tempest in a teapot in 20 years when this case is decided.
This lawsuit isn't about being able to run hacker apps or malware. Apps still have to go through the app approval process.
But EA does not set the price for the prices you see when you search. They paid Microsoft $5k+ to get the game approved (up front) and then sold copies of the game wholesale to retailers who then set whatever price they wanted. And that is why you see different prices. If Target wants to have a sale, they can do it. Apple doesn't randomly discount apps (without my inside knowledge of how free app of the week works).
Currently, that's not how the Apple ecosystem works - the developers pay $99/year up front + 30% of sales (after they are made) and they get to choose their price point and can change it at their convenience.
If there were more stores allowed to sell into the platform and it followed an Xbox like process, it would likely be higher up front cost to the developers which could lead to less available apps, or apps only from well funded developers. And lack of competition in the store for a particular app type would lead to higher costs to consumers.
So - how is that better?
kthnx. And I would suggest you buy a new sarcasm detector, because yours is broken.
Last edited:
This is why I stopped developing iOS apps. 1. There is way too much expectation on the part of buyers to have the app for free, or at most, 99 cents. 2. If there is even so much as a perceived flaw in the app, to include UI design, the app will get flamed with such hyperbolic outrage as if the developer had just set a litter of kittens on fire. It was not always so. The early days you could charge a fair price for your work, make money, and if you put out a good product, people were generally civil in their responses, both pro and con.
Exactly, the stores set the prices of those EA xbox games, just like it is Apple that sets the price of iOS apps.
Steam sells PC games, Mac games, Linux games. You don't think they want to sell iOS games? What if Steam could sell iOS games, do the hosting, credit card billing, and etc for less than the 30% cut. That is how it could be better.
Maybe Best buy can sell iOS apps as a door crasher or loss leader to get customers in their store. That is how it can be better.
Apple is using their monopoly in iOS devices to get a monopoly on iOS app stores.
No. I HAVE to get it from Apple and only Apple on iOS while on Android I am not under any compulsion to get it from Google.
You are being compelled to increase Apple's profits by buying apps from the store,not by choice.For instance,Rayman jungle run was on sale the other day on Amazon's app store when I bought it while it was full price on Play Store.See this is NOT a monopoly
Last edited:
Apps were non existent or crap on windows mobile. The AppStore changed the app scene on the iPhone.
Cheaper prices? The vendor sets the price, right?
Apple get's it's 30%, but if they claim 25% is for security then they'll be able to charge the third party companies to allow it on the device...
[doublepost=1484475869][/doublepost]
Apple sets the price?
Apple get's it's 30%, but if they claim 25% is for security then they'll be able to charge the third party companies to allow it on the device...
[doublepost=1484475869][/doublepost]
Apple sets the price?
That you repeat your personal wishful thinking does not make it more true.
[doublepost=1484485652][/doublepost]
It is not only to the courts to decide, also for the users and developers if they want to continue to accept such business practices. iOS is a quite nice UI and platform, but seriously limited by Apple's AppStore model. Especially on the iPad where it prevents really professional apps. And look to the appleTV where the controller situations was really silly until it was relaxed recently.
You do know the app developer sets the price not Apple. With that this may be why the suit gets tossed. As far as revenue, that may be immaterial.
[doublepost=1484486859][/doublepost]
I'm okay with this arrangement, are you? Vote with your dollars.
Btw. this 30% commission is really unfair. All the big apps from Google, Facebook, Instagram that generate the most download, bandwidth, and required "review" generate Apple nothing but 99$ a year for the company's developer account.
While all the small apps from indy developers for games, tools and such are financed directly by the app sales and net in Apple additional 30%. And why should those not be allowed to sell directly from the websites like for Mac, PC and other platforms?
Also do you have an idea how much 30% is for a smaller software house? This are a couple of jobs that they can not pay in favor of Apple netting in a couple of more billions overall.
[doublepost=1484487146][/doublepost]
Of course I do, which is why I will not refresh my retina macbook pro in the near further (especially as long as the new Macs are so degenerated), and no iPhone without headphone jack and I already got myself a Surface Pro and Nexus phone to sustain my future income.
Last edited:
We love our sp4 as well as our two MacBooks. Headphone jack is immaterial to me and the next generation Samsung is rumored to lose it as well.
No the suit is that Apple doesnt allow purchasing apps outside the app store.Apple vets Apps in the store.Apple earns profits on what you buy. Hence my choice is regulated by what Apple deems fit .Hence Apple is compelling people into buying from them and only them.
The rumor is confirmed false.Samsung is keeping their jack.They dont have a reason to remove it as they are still earning record profits.Once they tumble down then to increase accessory sales to compensate,they may remove it in future
http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/01/13/rumor-the-galaxy-s8-will-have-a-headphone-jack-after-all/
If I do a search for prices of 1 year old EA Xbox game, I'm going to get various prices. Why is that? Hint: those stores might have bought those games from EA for a certain amount but the stores set the price.
If a book is for sale at Amazon at half price, why is that? Hint: Amazon buys those books for a certain amount and decides to sell it for less as a loss leader.
If Steam was allowed to sell iOS apps, do you think they would take more or less than a 30 ℅ cut for doing the hosting, credit card billing, etc? Doesn't matter if it's more or less, it will be different from 30℅ and will end up having a different price than the Apple store for the end user. In this hypothetical situation, was it the developer or Steam that made the price different?
Is Apple acting as a mall owner, taking a cut and letting companies sell their iOS apps in Apple's mall? Mall owner doesn't set the prices of goods in the mall. Mall owner doesn't deal directly with customers.
Or
Is Apple a store owner, setting the price, dealing directly with the users?
"Apple had argued that users did not have standing to sue it because they purchased apps from developers, with Apple simply renting out space to those developers. Developers pay a cut of their revenues to Apple in exchange for the right to sell in the App Store.
A lower court sided with Apple, but Judge William A. Fletcher ruled that iPhone users purchase apps directly from Apple, which gives iPhone users the right to bring a legal challenge against Apple."
Last edited:
On the contrary, Apple's cut always has to be factored in.
For example, there was one hardware company which had always sold its mobile player app from its own website for $30. They didn't need anyone else to advertise or host their app. You bought their hardware, then you bought the players you needed for each mobile device.
For the iPhone, no player was available for a long time. no doubt partly because of figuring out how to get around Apple's store monopoly money grab.
Either they could keep the $30 price and lose $9 on each sale to Apple for no reason whatsoever, or to keep getting $30 after royalty they'd have to raise the Apple store price for iOS to $44, which seems unfair to the poor users.
I suspect that gaming companies especially would love to be able to sell from their own site and keep more of the purchase price. Along with other high profile/price productivity apps. Anything where a buyer is very likely to seek out an app no matter where it is.
So let me repeat, the developer sets the price, Apple does not set the price. Apples cut has nothing to do with the developer sets the price.
We can debate this all day long and for the next 10 years, nothing will change for a long time, which is the simple reality of this particular suit.
[doublepost=1484498228][/doublepost]
So again you are fallaciously arguing the entirety of samsungs business vs their mobile phone business which lost billions vs apples mobile phone business which made billions.
But wait, you yourself said you treat rumors as facts, so removal of jack on the s8 must be true.
In other words, moving the goal posts and hyperbole in the same post.
Malware is also found in the AppStore on a regular basis. And if you want your credit card data safe then Apple better stores it encrypted somewhere, like in their digital enclave chip so that even malware can not access it.
'cause thing is, malware can even get (and usually will) into your iPhone without an AppStore, e.g. by a security issue in Safari and iOS core that is used by a malicious website you visit.
All without AppStore and Apple's review. Unless you want Apple to review all websites you visit for you, too.
So proper iOS browser and kernel security is the key, not AppStore and review. The former is all that is needed, while the later helps you nothing much.
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...hone-app-market.2027255/page-29#post-24195865
Devs set the msrp, Apple sets the app store price
Last edited:
Cydia could argue that they would have made more money if apple didn't clamp down on jailbreaks.
Dev can set the price to free, one cent, two cents etc. Apple takes a cut. Don't know where you get your information from. Have you ever put an app on the App Store to even know?
At any rate, be prepare for a multi-year outcome to this.